Whose side are you on? Players or owners?

A) the owner wants to sell itB) the owner finds it acceptable that is loses money every year

?

...nope - the owner can keep it (if they want money, you know they can get loans against it -- right?) and for some teams like Anaheim that Forbes estimates lost $10 million a year -- what we don't see is that overall the team has appreciated over $17 million a year. So "losing" money many not really be true if one looks holistically at the franchise.

you can look at it however you want (as you clearly already know), but you're very disconnected from how a business owner would look at it. if you sink a large chunk of your fortune into a business that's in the red in any given year, but think it's ok because you'll just sell it one day, then great. but in this premise, you most definitely do not represent the mindset of a franchise owner. their standards are that they see a business that can appreciate AND put money in the bank in the mean time. so they're going to pursue their options (as we're seeing right now with the lockout). so what are you saying?

and another thing to consider...al davis. george steinbrenner. jerry buss. the mara family. the rooney family.

successful, iconic franchise owners. they all saw their asset appreciate beyond their wildest dreams. and you know what they did? either held onto it until they were in their grave or passed it down to their kids. this idea of a franchise being an investment isn't the rule.

i don't even know what you're doing with this thinking, honestly. you're presenting yourself as someone who knows better than the owners themselves - elite businessmen and negotiators. and you're not the only one doing it. that has baffled me throughout this thread.

I don't get the references. This was discussed plenty already in another thread, with numbers and info you want? The discussion is meant to open up the same idea in a separate thread and ask us to rehash and re research and search, we already did that??

My point is this isn't a big deal, the franchise value. If it was Fehr would be all over it as would have every other PA representation.

They never do because it's not a smoking gun and the numbers clearly favor the players.

If they didn't the NHlPA wouldn't be so focused on not the numbers, but finding ways to create creative contracts to get variable contracts so to speak.

Right now it's 81% to 19% in favor of the owners with 54 voters. Is this enough of a representative sample of passionate NHL hockey fans to conclude that they are overwhelmingly in favor of the owners? Should the PA take notice?

Bathgate wrote:Right now it's 81% to 19% in favor of the owners with 54 voters. Is this enough of a representative sample of passionate NHL hockey fans to conclude that they are overwhelmingly in favor of the owners? Should the PA take notice?

Bathgate wrote:Right now it's 81% to 19% in favor of the owners with 54 voters. Is this enough of a representative sample of passionate NHL hockey fans to conclude that they are overwhelmingly in favor of the owners? Should the PA take notice?

Do you think they care?

Yeah - Fehr just got the memo and is scheduling a press conference to accept the owner's proposal now based on this!!!

...and i'm debating the relevance of only considering annual net income when determining the overall financial picture of a business. if that is how we measure investments - i guess people who invest in the stock market are crazy. verizon and at&t are considered very strong dividend paying stocks (and remember - stock is partial ownership in the company). they're around 5%. for blue chip stocks...it only goes down from there. if the annual payout was the primary reason people invested in a business then i'd be left wondering why hundreds of millions of people across the globe take part in stock ownership of companies.

...and i'm debating the relevance of only considering annual net income when determining the overall financial picture of a business. if that is how we measure investments - i guess people who invest in the stock market are crazy. verizon and at&t are considered very strong dividend paying stocks (and remember - stock is partial ownership in the company). they're around 5%. for blue chip stocks...it only goes down from there. if the annual payout was the primary reason people invested in a business then i'd be left wondering why hundreds of millions of people across the globe take part in stock ownership of companies.

EDIT FOR CLARITY: A 5% dividend stock (since I mention it above) would yield about $10,000,000 annually on a $200,000,000 investment.

FWIW, A yield of .73% gives you only $1,460,000. That .73% looks like it would stink -- just so happens that this is the same percentage given by Bank of America. If you had put $200,000,000 on BAC last December - you really wouldn't have made (relatively speaking) much money in dividends. Looking at the appreciation, however, you would have doubled your money and would be sitting on an investment worth around $430,000,000. Which one looks more important there???

I'm just saying you CANNOT dismiss asset appreciation (and again, like a house - you don't have to sell it -- you can take loans out against it). looking holistically at these franchises - they've done well and do not require the strict laws they're dying on hills for in order to survive.

but what is your point as it relates to the lockout? it's probably been distorted along the way. are you saying that owners should accept an annual loss because of asset appreciation, thus eliminating the need for this lockout?

So in order to survive, teams losing $5 million per year should take out loans on their appreciation, at wjat will be high enough interest rates (like a home equity) so when they sell, and have had their yearly expenses further raised by an additional payment.

Part or if you look at the numbers of losses and values fron the vaunted forbes bible, all of their profits from selling go to pay off of the second equity.

Again, I fail to see how this is an argument that the owners somehow benefit from this. It just makes owning 25 of the 30 NHL teams suck a little bit less.

And again - if this were actually a big deal Fehr, or any other players union would have been bearing this to death. Over the past 30 years.

And they never do. Why? Because you haven't found any smoking gun or info that the heads of the PA don't already know, ifit was an issue for them we would hear about constantly, it's the same bs argument when people talk about them earning money in other related ventures. It's all open knowledge and part of the negotiation.

If Fehr, the players or any similar union heads and players over the year dont care, not sure why anyone else does.

shmenguin wrote:but what is your point as it relates to the lockout? it's probably been distorted along the way. are you saying that owners should accept an annual loss because of asset appreciation, thus eliminating the need for this lockout?

my point is literally the last sentence above your last post!!! are you even reading????

in more detail (again):

* should be 50/50 split on HRR.* i'm fine (and in favor of) contract limiters on year to year variance in payout (this assumes the cap hit is still the average of the overall value. this could even easily be handled by switching that methodology to make the cap hit the actual payout value).* i'm not in favor of contract length limits. this is america - teams should be able to do what they want. they can either then reap or sow the benefits of their decision.* i'm ok with big market teams having a little more free agency power -- that's life. i think the weber signing showed how this could hurt a franchise but at the same point, i felt back then that it was inevitable he'd get a deal like that and kinda look like nashville brought it upon themselves to get to that point (not totally - maybe not even 50% - but they had to know it was coming and maybe could have done something to preempt it).* i don't think UFA status should be backed away. so what if the 2nd deal has become the big one. the game today also is proving that one's prime is actually earlier than what some would have called it a few decades ago. * i think owners should honor all contracts and no rollback should occur.* i believe in expanding the revenue sharing between NHL franchises - much of that coming from the 57% to 50% (eventual) player HRR transition.

i think all of the above are acceptable because it does get the owners more money (helps with the ability to turn a profit every year. again - owners may make decisions such as additional spending due to IR cap space or burying a player in the minors) that may still financially hit the business while not showing up on the salary cap). it may not be a swift shot in the arm to give teams millions upon millions of dollars -- but, as i said, due to the asset appreciation they're generally ok to begin with.

Both sides are completely ridiculous. Both have been a disgrace to the rich history and pride that the sport has. Neither has completely negotiated in good faith. Both have engaged in a PR war.

The lockout is more about hubris and "who wins" than it is the quality of the game and the financial market we currently find ourselves in. Both have driven the fans into a state of apathy, which is way worse than dejection, anger, or sadness. Apathetic fans don't really care whether or not the season starts. And once we had the press conference debacle two weeks ago, it became clear that both fans and media legitimately don't give a crap right now.

This is the third labor stoppage under Gary Bettman. I've long contended that he isn't a "hockey guy" - and I still maintain that. The common theme to work stoppages is his presence here.

I cannot give the owners the benefit of the doubt for the following reasons:

1. The irresponsible contracts that they've handed out have created financial hardships for them. They've circumvented their own cap, repeatedly.

2. They haven't negotiated in good faith. The "take it or leave it offers" are a joke. They've not negotiated off of any of the PA proposals and their hardline stance on the current offer is ridiculous.

3. Their initial offer was such a joke that any offer they made after that would be perceived as a "concession" when, in reality, it's just a less ridiculous version of what they started with.

4. This lockout is about saving them from themselves. The one item they won't budge on is the one that GM's themselves have the most control over. That's absurd.

5. Parity is great, 30 carbon copy teams is not. The structure that the league wants might facilitate that. Say goodbye to free agency and the trade deadline being of any substance whatsoever.

The players aren't blameless. I have a list of gripes with them as well. I would slightly sway to their side, however.

shmenguin wrote:but what is your point as it relates to the lockout? it's probably been distorted along the way. are you saying that owners should accept an annual loss because of asset appreciation, thus eliminating the need for this lockout?

my point is literally the last sentence above your last post!!! are you even reading????

so your point is this (and thank you for, "are you even reading????". the use of 4 question marks really helps your case):

I'm just saying you CANNOT dismiss asset appreciation (and again, like a house - you don't have to sell it -- you can take loans out against it). looking holistically at these franchises - they've done well and do not require the strict laws they're dying on hills for in order to survive.

so your point is the following...owners should accept an annual loss because of asset appreciation, thus eliminating the need for this lockout. if only i had realized that sooner.

another way to put this is that you (a guy on a message board) think the owners (elite business owners) don't know how to value their assets correctly. this is a bold, bold sentiment.

Jesse wrote:I'm sure the majority of people will disagree with me on this.

I side with the players, albeit slightly.

Both sides are completely ridiculous. Both have been a disgrace to the rich history and pride that the sport has. Neither has completely negotiated in good faith. Both have engaged in a PR war.

The lockout is more about hubris and "who wins" than it is the quality of the game and the financial market we currently find ourselves in. Both have driven the fans into a state of apathy, which is way worse than dejection, anger, or sadness. Apathetic fans don't really care whether or not the season starts. And once we had the press conference debacle two weeks ago, it became clear that both fans and media legitimately don't give a crap right now.

This is the third labor stoppage under Gary Bettman. I've long contended that he isn't a "hockey guy" - and I still maintain that. The common theme to work stoppages is his presence here.

I cannot give the owners the benefit of the doubt for the following reasons:

1. The irresponsible contracts that they've handed out have created financial hardships for them. They've circumvented their own cap, repeatedly.

2. They haven't negotiated in good faith. The "take it or leave it offers" are a joke. They've not negotiated off of any of the PA proposals and their hardline stance on the current offer is ridiculous.

3. Their initial offer was such a joke that any offer they made after that would be perceived as a "concession" when, in reality, it's just a less ridiculous version of what they started with.

4. This lockout is about saving them from themselves. The one item they won't budge on is the one that GM's themselves have the most control over. That's absurd.

5. Parity is great, 30 carbon copy teams is not. The structure that the league wants might facilitate that. Say goodbye to free agency and the trade deadline being of any substance whatsoever.

The players aren't blameless. I have a list of gripes with them as well. I would slightly sway to their side, however.

my only issue with your points (and i'm still technically with the owners, but i'm trending towards the players) is implication that the owners and GM's could simply abstain from handing out cap-circumventing contracts. it's just not realistic, imo. you can either be competitive in free agency and partake or you can sit on the sidelines and watch your team and your fan base go into the tank. most teams would have been happy if these deals never existed, but a handful of them pissed in the punch bowl that everyone has to drink from.

Gaucho wrote:Sorry if I missed it, what makes you trend towards the players now? Just curious.

it's seeming more likely that we're going to lose a season. i could accept that if it was caused by the revenue split - the players' share of the pie was absurd, and well-run, middle class teams were simply not profitable enough. but this is now about contract terms, right? while i'm definitely in favor of the owners' proposed limitations, i don't believe it's enough to lose a season over.

so i still think the players, as an entity, are boneheads. and i don't agree with their overall perspective. but i don't think contract terms are worthy of being a "hill to die on".

Jesse wrote:5. Parity is great, 30 carbon copy teams is not. The structure that the league wants might facilitate that. Say goodbye to free agency and the trade deadline being of any substance whatsoever.

I'm not following you here. I've heard it argued countless times over the last cba that the long, big money, "untradable" contracts were the reason we didn't have as much movement during those times. The league wanting shorter contracts seems like it'd make for an environment with more active free agency and trade deadline periods.

Jesse, the only thing I will say that it doesn't matter how we arrived here. Blaming either side, right or wrong, is irrelevant to a needed solution. You can believe owners did wrong with high contracts and that's fine. Even if it is, this simply means they now realize the errors of their ways and are trying to change how they run their franchise. That's a good thing.

Now, players were making upwards of 70% for a while. Is any pro-player fan putting any blame on players for that? Or is that the owners fault too? They can't win. They pay players too much, people blame them for over-spending. They want to cut salaries, they're greedy bastards.

Point is the league's current model isn't working and it doesn't even matter how we got to this, but they need to fix it because you can't have 3 teams support so many other franchises. Even if these rules are to keep some owners in check, which is, again, a good thing.

I don't see what the owners are trying to do as a money grab, but a correction to a business model that isn't working. Maybe 5 years from now, if things get rolling, the next CBA will give players a little extra. It can go either way, so I don't know why some players, as I read, are paranoid that for the CBA in 5 years, they'll try to cut salaries all over again. It doesn't make sense.

Last edited by Sarcastic on Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

interstorm, I won't argue with you much on the asset appreciation thing because I see it's important to you and you're entitled to your opinion. My view is that appreciation doesn't come into play until the owner decides to sell the team but we can see how rarely that happens. What you are talking about may explain why some owners are willing to, basically, ride it out for the time being but make no mistake about it.. these guys aren't happy about having to run a business with year-to-year expenses and having to pour money into it from other sources. This is why we have this lockout. Look at it this way. Let's say a team's value raises 50 million in 10 years, but it loses 5 million a season. It's a wash. I get that most owners buy teams for the prestige and love of the game, but it doesn't mean they expect to lose money. Again, this is why we are in this situation. They're trying to find a happy medium. Players will always make money, but it would be a nice if teams could do the same. This is a league-wide problem, too. The few rich teams aren't happy they have to support others, and poor teams aren't happy because they come out with a minus. Can't keep the status quo and it has to swing to the owners a little bit.

So I appreciate your appreciation theory and may not even totally object to it, but I don't think it shows the full picture. How's that.

Sarcastic wrote:So I appreciate your appreciation theory and may not even totally object to it, but I don't think it shows the full picture. How's that.

no problem, man (and i like your little pun there - i see what you did )

for the record, too - i think the "appreciation theory" implemented with a 50/50 HRR split would overall do wonders for most teams. it's all the stuff and the bullying of the league to the PA (which has, other than decertification and suing for 3x's damages, little leverage) that i am really against. neither side is blameless -- just i think the owners haven't been willing to compromise in good faith (or, i guess, "less good faith" than the players).

the PA and league really need to get their history behind them and work in partnership with each other or this whole thing will come crashing down -- assuming it isn't doing that already

(read NHL and NHLPA history to get an understanding if you don't know what I mean)